Return to the Hot Topics Forum

 o
Bengazi - part 2

Posted by Bothell none (My Page) on
Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 21:10

I see that no one has continued the discussion now that Petraus has tesified that they knew immediately that it was connected to terrorists & disseminated information in order to not let Al-Quida know that the US was in pursuit of them. Why so quiet?


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 21:28

Because it does not fit their "narrative" ... Eric Cantor did say he kept quiet because it was a matter of "national security" but there are some that skip over that and keep chanting "Obama Obama Obama OMG OMG OMG" we have a "gate".


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Also skipping past the fact that Susan Rice was only supplied with unclassified talking points by the CIA. The classified material was never made available to her.

She never lied, not once, she only said what she belived to be true based on what she was told....just like Condi Rice all those years ago. Except Condi Rice had the classified version of the facts


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Oh and the incensed , outraged Sen McCain couldn't find time in his schedule yesterday to attend the hearings and testimony about the attacks.Seems something more important was on his calendar.....complaining to the press about what he doesn't know!


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

For McCain not to show up for the briefing where he would have been given more information, but instead continued to bad mouth Susan Rice.......well he just looks like an old fool.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Fri, Nov 16, 12 at 22:37

Rep Peter King appeared a bit shell shocked today, Hannity rolled right along tonite, he might as well had run a repeat show from a few daze ago. If Obama nominates Rice for SOS it'll be interesting to see how McCain handles it.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

For McCain not to show up for the briefing where he would have been given more information, but instead continued to bad mouth Susan Rice.......well he just looks like an old fool.

Yes, kind of like some around here that would rather bad mouth Obama than learn the truth.

My guess -- the silence is because right wing media hasn't reported this information.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Now where is the surprise.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

At least Obama stood up for Rice. Jeezsus - McCain is just an embarrassment. Like a pile of dead skunk stinking.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Fabricated scandal alright. Make no mistake--they knew this all along.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

The scandal is that four people are dead when they repeatedly begged for extra security from the Obama Administration and they did not get it.

That failure resulted in their grisly deaths.

Those deaths aren't fabricated.

THAT is the scandal and it won't go away.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

The funding for extra security was cut by who?
Deaths are most certainly real the drum beats of paranoid conspiracy are what being referred to.
We have 120,000 Civilians dead in Iraq no investigation of the administration or corporate profiteers that led us in there. I bet if there were youd be on the other side of the fence.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

The scandal is that four people are dead when they repeatedly begged for extra security

Yes, why didn't the CIA provide better security? From the previous Benghazi thread:

When the bodies of Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans killed in Benghazi, Libya, arrived at Andrews Air Force Base after the Sept. 11 attack, they were greeted by the president, the vice president and the secretaries of state and defense. Conspicuously absent was CIA Director David Petraeus.

Officials close to Mr. Petraeus say he stayed away in an effort to conceal the agency's role in collecting intelligence and providing security in Benghazi. Two of the four men who died that day, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, were former Navy SEAL commandos who were publicly identified as State Department contract security officers, but who actually worked as Central Intelligence Agency contractors, U.S. officials say.

The U.S. effort in Benghazi was at its heart a CIA operation, according to officials briefed on the intelligence. Of the more than 30 American officials evacuated from Benghazi following the deadly assault, only seven worked for the State Department. Nearly all the rest worked for the CIA, under diplomatic cover, which was a principal purpose of the consulate, these officials said. [...]

This account of the CIA presence in Benghazi sheds new light on the events, and how the essentially covert nature of the U.S. operations there created confusion. Congressional investigators say it appears that the CIA and State Department weren't on the same page about their respective roles on security, underlining the rift between agencies over taking responsibility and raising questions about whether the security arrangement in Benghazi was flawed.

The CIA's secret role helps explain why security appeared inadequate at the U.S. diplomatic facility. State Department officials believed that responsibility was set to be shouldered in part by CIA personnel in the city through a series of secret agreements that even some officials in Washington didn't know about.

It also explains why the consulate was abandoned to looters for weeks afterward while U.S. efforts focused on securing the more important CIA quarters. Officials say it is unclear whether the militants knew about the CIA presence or stumbled upon the facility by following Americans there after the attack on the consulate. [...]

The FBI didn't initially get to review surveillance footage taken at the compound because officials say it was being analyzed by the CIA. The CIA, in turn, wasn't able to immediately get copies of FBI witness interviews, delaying the agency's analysis of what happened outside the consulate and at the annex.

A senior congressional investigator said the secrecy has made it harder to figure out what errors were made, because classification restrictions have allowed the CIA to avoid public and congressional scrutiny for its conduct. Information about the CIA's role has largely been limited to congressional intelligence committees, which are reviewing the attacks but have not launched investigations into them.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

We have 120,000 Civilians dead in Iraq no investigation of the administration or corporate profiteers that led us in there.

And the spike in birth defects and cancers caused by U.S. weapons using depleted uranium.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Rep Peter King appeared a bit shell shocked today,

He should. He backtracked from the statements he made on CNN the night before.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Who cut the funding, Demi? Your party, I believe. The Right isn't commenting here yet because Fox is not reporting it. They will look like the total fools they are. Journalism, my ass. Fair and balanced. What a crock.

John McCain should leave the Senate and go straight to the nursing home. He's totally losing it. I really hope Obama nominates Susan Rice for SOS.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

You know, I distinctly remember giving some of those answers 2-3-4 Benghazi threads ago--in particular, that the reason Rice and Sec. of State gave the info. they did was because the CIA told them that was what happened. But no, the conspiricists insisted it was because Rice and other Obama officials were corrupt and covering up some nefarious plot. In fact, I remember posting that info. about the CIA as source twice--and being ignored twice since that info. did not fit the "gotcha, Obama" narrative the paranoidists were spinning.

I also remember posting several times that there were no orders for potential rescue groups to "stand down." That was just a made-up story by the anti-Obama-ites who wanted grounds for condemning him.

Well, I'm here to tell them--"I told you so!" And I don't even care to be "nice" about it. I'm so sick and tired of Birthists and Benghazists and their ilk going off the deep end and screeching (as ohiomom put it), OMG OMG OMG we have a "gate"--that I'd like to rub a few noses in the mud and hope they finally learned a lesson (but they won't!) about making up scare scenarios. If their lives are really that boring that they must "write" their own end-of-the-world scripts, why don't they just submit them to a publisher as good, exciting fiction and maybe make a lot of money. At any rate, stay out of politics--our govt. has real and serious things to deal with, not creative fictions.

Kate


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

We have 120,000 Civilians dead in Iraq no investigation of the administration or corporate profiteers that led us in there.

And the spike in birth defects and cancers caused by U.S. weapons using depleted uranium.

Let us not forget that the current administration used DU weapons against the people of Libya. Let's condemn the action and call all who participated to accountability.

I'm afraid Obama gets a free pass from far too many of you when it comes to his wicked actions involving DU weapons in Libya and the drone killings. I know you don't approve, but you rarely, if ever, condemn his actions with the vigor and hatred like you do against Bush, etc.

I know, he's the lesser evil. *sigh


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

The administration purposely threw people, unrelated to the incident, under the bus? Something doesn't ring true.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

"they repeatedly begged"

Demi could you please point me in the direction of any credible source that states they repeatedly begged.

You don't have to explain any further than that, I'll do the leg work myself but all I can find is mention is the request for additional security.

There is no doubt in my mind that the request was made however I find uses of words like "begged" serve no purpose but to try and distort the facts ....unless of course they actually were begging.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I think my theory from the other thread may be closer to the facts than I surmised. If so that should be more of a scandal than the original theories. If the CIA withheld information from both the President and the Secretary of State that is a serious problem! I know nothing , total speculation on my part.

"My theory is that the Benghazi location was a home for CIA operatives and all communication with regards to what was happening there was through the CIA and went no further which is why Petraeus has really resigned. He did not inform his CIC of the events on the ground.

Security for the Benghazi site was in the hands of the CIA, not the State Department, and one of the reasons nothing much has been said by those in the "know" is because they were undertaking clandestine CIA operations there and they don't want that information "out there".

I think that the State Department had little or nothing to do with the Benghazi site.

The Ambassador was in the wrong place at the wrong time."


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

They should ban DVD players and this wouldn't have happened.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

No matter what the reason, I do not agree with falsely blaming a movie when they knew it was a terrorist attack. A "we don't know" or "we are trying to figure it out" would have been better than blaming it on a movie. The movie excuse never sounded right to me.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I would agree had there not been so many riots related to the movie happening at exactly the same time starting with the riots in Egypt.

It actually seemed logical to me that this was part of the same series of riots. Obviously it wasn't, but at the time it seemed reasonable to assume that this riot was no different than all the rest.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I do not agree with falsely blaming a movie when they knew it was a terrorist attack

There were at least 50 protests against the film, several of them deadly, going on at the same time all over the middle east. Why should they 'know' this was different?

The assorted conspiracy theories seem to revolve around the idea that if they'd called it a terrorist attack that would 'prove' that Obama's anti-terrorist policies weren't working, and therefore the voters would rush to elect Romney. I sincerely doubt that. Once again......


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

The Obama administration was the first in modern history to avoid significant scandals during his first term. Amazing example in this age of gotcha 24/7 journalism.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

David you bring up a point that has been bothering me....

If the President, SOS Clinton and Ambassador Rice had never mentioned the video would there even be a "scandal"? As more and more of the lies and distortions around this tragic event are debunked it seems this is the only point that those who want to make this all about the President keep harping about.

It didn't cost him the election and it won't cost him his Presidency. That must really irk some folk.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

The Obama administration was the first in modern history to avoid significant scandals during his first term. Amazing example in this age of gotcha 24/7 journalism.

Even more amazing is this has been accomplished with a Right Wing media devoted to creating a scandal. A group populated with many Americans willing and waiting to accept any fantasy scandal that they are presented to consider without question or using logic. Just give them a crumb and they will make a loaf of bread with that crumb.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

David you bring up a point that has been bothering me....
If the President, SOS Clinton and Ambassador Rice had never mentioned the video would there even be a "scandal"? As more and more of the lies and distortions around this tragic event are debunked it seems this is the only point that those who want to make this all about the President keep harping about.

It didn't cost him the election and it won't cost him his Presidency. That must really irk some folk.

That is exactly it, chase. They tried to turn it into a scandal that they thought would seal the deal for an Obama defeat. Well, it didn't work and they still cannot believe it didn't work and it has sent some people on this forum (as well as some right wing news people) off that cliff we've been hearing so much about.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Marshall, a truer statement was never made . In this age of gotcha journalism, Obama is squeaky clean and the Right is desperate. They have thrown everything at him except marital infidelity. They are so incensed that his foreign policy is tough but restrained and he got Bin Laden and so many AL-qaeda leaders that he decimated their numbers. Benghazi was going to be their wild card to bring him down. Guess what the sheeple who watch FOX which was hammering away at this for untold weeks...it didn't work. How 'bout them apples?

Face it he won the election, and he isn't going to take it any more. The last straw was Susan Rice who did nothing but supply info that was fed to her and changed by the CIA. THEY changed the wording and did that because Al Qaeda is rag tag bunch now that Obama decimated them and they wanted to pursue them without distraction.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Lily...you must have missed this one. Surprised it didn't show up here.

Here is a link that might be useful: Michelle Obamas sizziling affair!


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Wow, chase. Where in the world did you come up with that scandalmonger? I didnt' even know it exists. I note the date was about a year ago. So what happened next? Where's the follow-up? I can't wait to email all my friends on this WH dirt! Come-on--give me the low-down!!!!!

Kate


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Chase, I did miss that one...lol. Wingnut sites aren't on my radar.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

That is funny. Do we have any Leftwing nut sites? These things are rag magazine stories of I was abducted by Aliens stories. We knew back years ago these were entertainment and a laugh for the day.

Now they take it as fact and repeat the stories as FACTS!


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Don't forget this ridiculous thread and what it implied.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Wow, Chase. I missed that one. Gotta love this:

The allegations are, of course, unsubstantiated and only time will tell if the allegations will fizzle or blow up into a major issue in the upcoming presidential campaign

Well, I guess time told! When even Fox News won't pick up the story...


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Forget wingnut sites, we have our very own garden variety one right here on HT ,although since the election she appears to be AWOL. Not surprising.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

although since the election she appears to be AWOL

Shhh, it's been relatively sane lately ... don't let her hear you.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

My goodness, I haven't seen a single post giving accolades to Obama for taking up for the little woman. He jumped right to her defense with such indignation. Who told her to lie about the video...well, he did say put the blame on him, so that might give us the answer.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Mrskjun, are you referring to the United States Ambassador to the United Nations as "the little woman"? Seriously?


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

for the little woman.

What? What does that mean? I am finding it very hard to believe you just said that, but there it is right in front of me. Wow.

Who told her to lie about the video

Um, might I suggest you watch/read some news other than Fox or right wing website. Really.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

F.,..g weird out there in la-la-land of the ultra-rightists. Are they inhaling prohibited substances or imbibing hallucinatory beverages?

"Little woman" as referring to an accomplished and educated chief Ambassador belies all claims to not being bigoted or, worse, racist.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

F.,..g weird out there in la-la-land of the ultra-rightists. Are they inhaling prohibited substances or imbibing hallucinatory beverages?

Photobucket

It is becoming the Wizard of Oz around here. If I only had a brain.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Really? Are you sure she is smart enough to handle her own defense? It sure sounded like Obama thought the "little woman" needed the big strong man to defend her. His faux outrage was outstanding.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Give it a rest before you embarrass yourself some more.

Obama referred to Rice as Ambassador Rice, not as the little woman, unlike yourself.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Give it a rest before you embarrass yourself some more.

Sage advice Marshall. She should take it.



 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Give it a rest before you embarrass yourself some more.

Sage advice Marshall. She should take it.



 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Just true colours. Where is the surprise.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

"Little woman"? Really? This comment was actually made by a woman? The way the Right has treated this woman, Susan Rice, is abominable. I sincerely hope she takes Hilliary's place. In your face, I say. .


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Well, at least she'll "toe the line" won't she?


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Well, at least she'll "toe the line" won't she?

mrskjun
You serve as an embarrassment and a reminder of how far Women have come in this society.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I never had to have someone take up for me when I worked.

Of course I didn't go out in public and mislead people, either.

You'd think if Ms. Rice is so capable she could explain why she said what she said when she said it without Obama having to "take up" for her.

Personal Responsibility isn't a priority for this administration.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Condi Rice has said no one should rush to judgement in this matter. That information is often conflicted in situations like Benghazi. I prefer to take her lead on matters like this rather than armchair quarterbacks with no access to the real facts or any experience in matters as complicated as this.

Ambassador Rice, in her capacity as Ambassador to the the UN, had no involvement in any events related to Behghazi. She was given unclassified information from the CIA and used that as the basis of her remarks. She even went so far as to qualify her remarks by saying.

" our current best assessment, based on the information that we have at present, is that, in fact, what this began as, it was a spontaneous � not a premeditated � response to what had transpired in Cairo. In Cairo, as you know, a few hours earlier, there was a violent protest that was undertaken in reaction to this very offensive video that was disseminated.

She did absolutely nothing wrong. She told what she believed was the truth. The fact that it turned out to be wrong is in no way attributable to her.

Patreaus has verified that she NEVER was appraised of the classified information she only said what she had been told and what she had every reason to believe was the truth. Heck even Peter King is walking this back !

Is there someone that needs to hang out for the fact she was sent out with incorrect information....absolutely ....but the attack on her is nothing but a partisan witch hunt and is wrong on so many levels.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Chase I applaud your patience and time you took to explain the situation. A situation that I fail to understand why if people can read and are truly concerned about this situation why they cannot follow the trail.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

You know, I understand that sometimes throwing out insults against the opposing political party is part of the game of debate. But, if you are going to do it, it should be fair for both sides. Calling Susan Rice 'the little woman' is not okay, but referring to Sen. McCain and as a pile of dead skunk stinking is acceptable? Kettle - Pot. Pot - Kettle. You people can't have it both ways. Why not just stop the name calling altogether and just be civil, for crying out loud?


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

"I never had to have someone take up for me when I worked."

Demi, I had a 30 year career, in a large business, most of which was spent at the mid and upper management levels. A good "boss" does not hang their employees out to dry for events that occur beyond their control. A good "boss" assumes the responsibility and deals with the consequences. A week boss sends their staff out to to take the blame.

In this matter the President said exactly what he should have said as the "boss" when he said :

"As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, THEY SHOULD GO AFTER ME"

If the President has not said such a thing the lament from the right would be he threw her under the bus.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

You're probably right about the last sentence.

I just don't see why she won't say exactly why she said what she did.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I don't know this to be a fact but I'm going to assume she was told/asked to refrain from further comment until the facts were in and the investigations dealt with.

In my experience in times of "crisis" it's best to focus all communications from one source to limit further confusion and dissemination of inaccurate information.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

turkeyscrabble, you bring up a good point. The issues are different. One being a human rights issue "little woman" vs just ugly reaction to someone that is purposely out to harm someone. McCain.

I placed the human rights ahead of disdain for someone that would purposely set out to harm someone's human rights.

The women's rights fight is something that we have men dying on foreign soil today so women are not spoke of and treated as inferior. The McCain name calling will not take his rights away or make him less than the man he will be tomorrow.

The words spoken were a descriptive of McCain's behavior and the "Little Woman" was a insult of Rice's human rights. JMO


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

That's my point--if there weren't some type of problem or coverup, why can't she just tell the truth?

At the very least, it seems to me that the Obama Administration did not know what was going on with the different agencies, or did and is trying to keep something quiet.

Either way, they're getting stories straight.

It's understandable from a political point of view, just not understandable from a reasonable point of view if there's nothing hide--deceit or incompetence.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

What truth are you speaking of? The Administration has admitted publicly that it was in fact a terrorist attack and the President, per the quote in my previous post, has said she was speaking from information provided to her.

In either case , you especially should know, that it is inappropriate to discuss a matter under investigation. It is the investigations job to report the findings. You can be sure she will, or already has, offer sworn testimony at the hearings.

Our problem seems to be that we can't seem to wait for the legal/formal process to unfold.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Give up, chase. Demi is always determined to have the last word and not recant anything she said earlier--even when she is clearly wrong in part or in whole about everything or most of the things she said earlier.

She can't accept any of your points because her self-image depends on always presenting herself as right (in her own eyes) even when she is wrong (in nearly everybody else's eyes).

I'm off again--just peeked in for a moment to see if you peeps were still dragging this out endlessly.

Bye-bye.

Kate


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Sun, Nov 18, 12 at 10:54

Why did Eric Cantor keep quiet ? He could have spoken out ahead of the election, oh that is right he said it was a matter of "national security".

Kudos to Condi Rice, someone who is not intent on playing "petty partisan" games.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Mark my words, there will never be an apology from any Rightie member of Congress to Ms Rice, and there will never be one from anyone on this forum who has dragged this out since it happened either.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

At any cost, we must divert attention away from the election results, the state of the Republican Party and the impending legislative cliff facing the government.

petty petty petty pettiness

The substitute for common sense and decency.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Kate - I agree with your post 100%. Glad I'm not the only one that noticed :-)


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I didn't turn her into the little woman. Obama did that all by himself. Rushing to her defense with his faux outrage. Don't pick on that little dear, I have the big strong shoulders to handle it, but not her.

How dare any liberal woman act as if they are outraged at the treatment of a woman. You must qualify that as outrage of the treatment of a liberal woman. We have seen you shred conservative women with the nastiest of posts, including about their looks, their parenting skills, and personal lives.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Mrs, are you saying that the "little woman" reference is actually a criticism of the president's (implied) disrespect of Rice because he is under the assumption that she isn't capable of staightening out her public difficulties on her own? If that is your position, I hear what you are saying.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Exactly what I was saying elvis.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I think only a couple of posters "got" your meaning, Mrs. The knee jerk reaction wasn't good. It's very difficult to NOT be misinterpreted here when posting any but the simplest of ideas; deliberate obtuseness on the part of those who do "get" a post like yours only compounds the problem. The opportunity to attack a poster perceived as the enemy is (almost) irresistible.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Posted by elvis 4b WI (My Page) on
Sun, Nov 18, 12 at 20:21

I think only a couple of posters "got" your meaning, Mrs. The knee jerk reaction wasn't good. It's very difficult to NOT be misinterpreted here when posting any but the simplest of ideas; deliberate obtuseness on the part of those who do "get" a post like yours only compounds the problem. The opportunity to attack a poster perceived as the enemy is (almost) irresistible.

*

Well, Elvis, thanks for telling it like it is.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I didn't turn her into the little woman. Obama did that all by himself.

Doing a google search of "susan rice" + "little woman" yields a glimpse of the right-wing blogosphere's most recent spin / attack on President Obama.

Susan Rice is a "little woman" when it's necessary to score partisan points.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I did the same google search with the same google results, again belying assertions of being misunderstood by liberal partisans.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Naive me, I thought Demi I were actually getting somewhere in our discussion upthread . Won't make that mistake again.

However I will reiterate what I said.

"I never had to have someone take up for me when I worked."

Demi, I had a 30 year career, in a large business, most of which was spent at the mid and upper management levels. A good "boss" does not hang their employees out to dry for events that occur beyond their control. A good "boss" assumes the responsibility and deals with the consequences. A week boss sends their staff out to to take the blame.In this matter the President said exactly what he should have said as the "boss" when he said :"As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, THEY SHOULD GO AFTER ME"If the President has not said such a thing the lament from the right would be he threw her under the bus."

A good boss does not hang their subordinates out to dry when they have done nothing wrong. To belittle Ambassador Rice, given the facts, says more about those who do than her.

Enough said by me on this matter I have no patience with those who would destroy this woman for no good reason. Go after the big guy..she did nothing wrong.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Sun, Nov 18, 12 at 21:09

Naive me, I thought Demi I were actually getting somewhere in our discussion upthread . Won't make that mistake again.

*

What do you mean by that?

I agreed with you, with my additions of why I think she won't talk.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Naive me, I thought Demi I were actually getting somewhere in our discussion upthread . Won't make that mistake again.

However I will reiterate what I said.

"I never had to have someone take up for me when I worked."

Demi, I had a 30 year career, in a large business, most of which was spent at the mid and upper management levels. A good "boss" does not hang their employees out to dry for events that occur beyond their control. A good "boss" assumes the responsibility and deals with the consequences. A week boss sends their staff out to to take the blame.In this matter the President said exactly what he should have said as the "boss" when he said :"As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, THEY SHOULD GO AFTER ME"If the President has not said such a thing the lament from the right would be he threw her under the bus."

A good boss does not hang their subordinates out to dry when they have done nothing wrong. To belittle Ambassador Rice, given the facts, says more about those who do than her.

Enough said by me on this matter I have no patience with those who would destroy this woman for no good reason. Go after the big guy..she did nothing wrong.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Naive me, I thought Demi I were actually getting somewhere in our discussion upthread . Won't make that mistake again.

However I will reiterate what I said.

"I never had to have someone take up for me when I worked."

Demi, I had a 30 year career, in a large business, most of which was spent at the mid and upper management levels. A good "boss" does not hang their employees out to dry for events that occur beyond their control. A good "boss" assumes the responsibility and deals with the consequences. A week boss sends their staff out to to take the blame.In this matter the President said exactly what he should have said as the "boss" when he said :"As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, THEY SHOULD GO AFTER ME"If the President has not said such a thing the lament from the right would be he threw her under the bus."

A good boss does not hang their subordinates out to dry when they have done nothing wrong. To belittle Ambassador Rice, given the facts, says more about those who do than her.

Enough said by me on this matter I have no patience with those who would destroy this woman for no good reason. Go after the big guy..she did nothing wrong.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Naive me, I thought Demi I were actually getting somewhere in our discussion upthread . Won't make that mistake again.

However I will reiterate what I said.

"I never had to have someone take up for me when I worked."

Demi, I had a 30 year career, in a large business, most of which was spent at the mid and upper management levels. A good "boss" does not hang their employees out to dry for events that occur beyond their control. A good "boss" assumes the responsibility and deals with the consequences. A week boss sends their staff out to to take the blame.In this matter the President said exactly what he should have said as the "boss" when he said :"As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her. If Senator McCain and Senator Graham and others want to go after somebody, THEY SHOULD GO AFTER ME"If the President has not said such a thing the lament from the right would be he threw her under the bus."

A good boss does not hang their subordinates out to dry when they have done nothing wrong. To belittle Ambassador Rice, given the facts, says more about those who do than her.

Enough said by me on this matter I have no patience with those who would destroy this woman for no good reason. Go after the big guy..she did nothing wrong.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Sorry for the triple post....not good.

Demi your response to Elvis says to me nothing we discussed was of any value. You were right back to defending Mrs for the totally inappropriate "little woman" comment.

I am of the opinion you would rather partake in grade school bickering than a meanigful discussion.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I'm sorry, but I truly don't see what the big deal about Benghazi is.

Yes, four men were killed and that IS tragic. But these were four foreigners in a situation where they understood the risks of going to a country that has just emerged from a civil war. An unstable country full of people who hate them just for being western and an unstable government that cannot even protect itself from it's own citizens, let alone protect foreign diplomats.

They knew this, as did the government. It's a risk they took and whatever failings there were in protecting them or in the intelligence channels is to be expected. Yes, there was an elevated threat/danger... they were in LIBYA, for crying out loud.

Why is this such a big topic, besides the chance for a "gotcha" moment for one side or the other?


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives refused to fund the State Department request for stationing US Marines at Embassies and other US legations during Obama's first term as President. THAT has turned out to be a great embarrassment to the Republican leadership of the House.

Also the CIA seems to have been running its own and much larger operation in the annex to the State Dept. facility. I still want to know why the Ambassador had to go there during those troubled days?


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Google sometimes can turn out to be the enemy of the Wingnuts. We can catch their latest outrage with a few clicks. I never go to the Rightwing sites, nor watch Fox, so I always know what the latest deal is when they all simultaneously give the same talking points here.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

hamiltongardener, I can understand why you do not understand. It is hard to believe any thinking American that have reading skills would use this disaster in the manner it has been used. It is called "GOP's 'faux anger' it is all the rage

They are so miserable that President Obama won they cannot help themselves. It too shall pass and they will have a new faux anger of the week when they are told what to think next.

The faux anger does help with the Democratic elections so I have grown to enjoy watching them twist into pretzels trying to work up the faux anger of the week while their Republican politicians try to explain how they would like to elect a Republican President one day. They forgot to tell their supporters that this only hurts their chances.

Romney and the Right wing supporters cannot help what they say.

Newsflash.....
paging Fox News....#Benghazi; MT @gallupnews Obama's current 58% favorable rating is his best in over 3 years gallup.com

Obama’s just getting more popular despite Fox News’ insistence on covering the story.

Here is a link that might be useful: Election Is Over


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

hg, it's more than that. I don't know if you remember Watergate and the coverup. This is Watergate and more. In Watergate, no one died.

What we do know. For months Benghazi had become more and more dangerous. The British had pulled out, Red Cross had pulled out. The consulate had been attacked once and a large hole had been blown into the wall surrounding it by rocket fire. There had been continued requests for more security by the ambassador that had not been forthcoming.

And to set the record straight. Although congress had reduced funding, more democrats voting for the reduction than republicans, Lamb testified at the hearings that there were plenty of funds available to increase security. The question is, why wasn't security increased.

We now know that it was known by the intelligence community that they always knew it was a terrorist attack. There have been no answers as to why it took seven hours for four Americans to die, and no help was forthcoming. Why not?

Then there is the question of the talking points of the video. Who put out those talking points? Are we to believe that the president did not know it was a terrorist act from the beginning? Or the Secretary of State? Why was Susan Rice sent out to five different talk shows to further the story that this attack was over a video. Why did the president state six different times in his speech to the UN that these people died over a video? Why did Hillary Clinton promise the father of one of the Seals that the maker of the video would be arrested and jailed?

At least Diane Feinstein, a democrat and head of the intelligence committee wants to find out the truth.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Here I go repeating myself -- again and again and again.

The reason we don't answer many of your questions, mrsk, is because we don't know the answers.

But you know that. You've been told that many times in these threads.

Since there is nothing we can do about it, we understand that we will just have to wait patiently for the FOUR OFFICIAL INVESTIGATIONS to be completed and to give us the answers they found. Then we will all have facts on which we can base our conclusions rather than spinning speculations in the absence of the necessary facts.

But you knew that already. We have said that on previous threads.

The one speculation we might hazard is that since Repubican leaders (even belatedly like McCain, for instance), once they receive private briefings on what is going on, suddenly close their mouths and quit the kind of provocative speculating that typifies too many of the posts on this and other HT threads--perhaps that indicates that they know and understand something that the conservative critics on this thread do not know and understand. Why they can't tell the public, I don't know--but evidently they are satisfied with what they are being told or at least, like good professionals, now understand that fanning the flames and hanging the Obama administration in absentia is NOT the American way. You know, the whole innocent until proven guilty thing? "Speculation" is NOT the same thing as "proof."

But you know that since it has been pointed out several times already.

This is really getting boring having to listen to the same accusations/speculations over and over again, and having to give the same answers over and over again.

Kate


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

hmmm Kate, I guess I don't recall asking you for any answers. Actually I would prefer getting them from someone who knows.

After two months, are you saying that they still don't know who put out the video talking points? Not likely. Someone is just hoping this will go away.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Kate, Mrsk isn't interested in the truth. She was one of the gang that posted (links) that Ambassador Stevens had been tortured and raped. Heaven forbid she should wait until the investigations are completed before criticizing. From what I've read here, she isn't one to let the truth get in the way.

~Ann


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Do you know the truth ann? Or do you want to know the truth? I certainly will let it get in the way. And you are right, I did post that link, and did acknowledge that the reporting was incorrect. And too bad that I don't think it takes two months to know who put out the story about the video when everyone knew from the beginning that it was a terrorist attack and chose to go with the video story anyway. Maybe it will take longer to find out why seven hours passed and no help was sent to Benghazi. But I hope Feinstein and the rest of them don't let it go.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I hope Feinstein and the rest of them don't let it go.

I'd guess most of us agree. Most of us, however, don't feel the need to vent daily. We are willing to wait for the four official investigations to complete their work.

Kate


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I too am disappointed in Mrskjun's contributions.

National security is under threat from all these flamings of the Administration. The intelligence organizations must be deeply involved. If so, we will not know the full story for some time.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Checked foxnews.com just now - Benghazi is still the top story with the biggest picture. After that, the 3 medium level stories are Twinkies, Next Generation Squadron/Defense cuts, and a story about a potential serial killer in NYC.

Fox News is keeping this front and center.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Given that description, esh, Fox News is beginning to sound like a grocery store check-out tabloid, don't you think?

Kate


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Principals at the Post often have said that the newspaper�s reporting kept the Watergate story alive during the summer and fall of 1972, a time when few other news organizations seemed interested in pursuing the scandal.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Mrskjun has questions, I have questions, and we have reason not to trust our gov and lack of proper security has been handled.

There's nothing with wanting answers. It is our RIGHT and in fact I think, our duty to hold our government accountable for this travesty.

I know that I don't take at face value anything anyone here says, and it's laughable that there are those that chastise those of us with legitimate questions for talking about something too much when they've told us how it is, they've answered the questions so be quiet already so they don't have to hear it.

That attitude is unbelievably arrogant, especially in the face of the many posts of not only speculation but lies about conservatives and Republican figures--and none of those matters involve four dead Americans and our national security.

So excuse us if we have questions while awaiting for the Obama Administration get their act together to release their "official findings."

On second thought, don't excuse us--there's nothing to excuse.

Chase, I'm not interested in grade school bickering.

But I can tell you that most any time I give an opinion about a subject that doesn't set right with someone else
grade school name calling is the result.

There are those that I don't even know and haven't "spoken" to on this forum about anything that are just waiting to tell me what they think of me, personally, and comment to one another about me, publicly.

You have done the very same thing, an I've not done that to you.

So lily white isn't exactly where you come from in that regard.

I wouldn't throw stones.

In the meantime, four Americans are dead and we get a stonewalling government and liberals telling us to move along, nothing to see here.

We deserve answers--whether anyone else wants them or not is of no consequence.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Ohh I missed this.
�Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Sun, Nov 18, 12 at 21:28

Sorry for the triple post....not good.
Demi your response to Elvis says to me nothing we discussed was of any value. You were right back to defending Mrs for the totally inappropriate "little woman" comment.

I am of the opinion you would rather partake in grade school bickering than a meanigful discussion.

I suppose the thing is chase, that no one even "got it" except for demi and elvis. I don't see Susan Rice as the "little woman". But it was quite obvious that Obama did, and he threw himself in front of her as her big strong protector.

Sort of like calling an intelligent female reporter....Sweetie!


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

There's nothing with wanting answers. It is our RIGHT and in fact I think, our duty to hold our government accountable for this travesty.

As far as I can tell, no one disagrees with these statements. And there ARE active investigations (except for when Congress is on holiday, I guess).


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

On the usual monday morning quarterbacking by Cokie Roberts on NPR, she opined that this ridiculous obsession re Benghazi has more to do with the Republicans, in particular McCain and Lindsey Graham, desperately trying to get back their military/security street cred.

But boy, does everybody else think they look foolish trying to do so.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Yes, we are being accused of trying to stop posters from ranting and raving by mentioning that these matters are already well under investigation. Bad on us.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

There's nothing with wanting answers. It is our RIGHT and in fact I think, our duty to hold our government accountable for this travesty.

Absolutely. There are investigations going on as we speak.

It would be a lot easier to believe you if you felt this way all the time, and not just when Obama is the one in charge. I've asked this before and never received an answer. Were there posts similar to this from you after the original 9/11? Were you outraged that Bush had reports that terrorists were planning to do exactly what they did? If so, I would love to read them.

What about all the other embassy attacks that have occurred? The ones David keeps posting. The ones I guess you ignore because they are a picture.

I suspect this is more a get Obama thing than anything else.

There are those that I don't even know and haven't "spoken" to on this forum about anything

Perhaps you don't understand the point of a public forum? Everything you post here is "spoken to" everyone that is here reading. If you don't like that, then don't post. But, the constant complaining and whining that someone responded to a post of yours when you didn't address them by name is just so silly. I don't even know what to say about the "don't even know" comment. Huh? Do you have to personally know people here before they are allowed to respond to your posts? Do you understand how silly a statement that is?


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

This is Watergate and more.

This comment betrays a lack of knowledge of the facts of the Nixon Administration and the Watergate scandal - unless you mean to imply that the CIA is now out of control as it was at that time.

The intelligence organizations must be deeply involved. If so, we will not know the full story for some time.

Since the CIA is involved, expect little to nothing to be revealed - national security will be invoked.

As some of us commented at the time, there was little information coming out as to who was involved in the Libyan revolt - secular dissidents, Muslim Brotherhood, Salafists, jihadists, or common citizens. Arms were supplied in an unstable arena, which continues to be unstable, and they've been circulated among those the West would rather not have weapons. That is one concern of the CIA in Benghazi, and heaven knows what else is going on with their presence.

Some of the arms have been shipped out to the Syrian rebels - another group composed of elements that are as nasty, or worse, than the current Syrian rulers. Perhaps the CIA is facilitating the shipments, but that information would be blocked under 'national security.' The story will come out in a number of years, by bits and pieces.

Does anyone remember Edwin P. Wilson, the CIA agent hung out to dry when that agency was supplying Libya with weapons and plastic explosives? Ex-CIA man Edwin Wilson, jailed for selling arms to Libya, dies.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

"I suppose the thing is chase, that no one even "got it" except for demi and elvis." ........"But it was quite obvious that Obama DID, and he threw himself in front of her AS HER BIG STRONG DEFENDER. "

Oh I "got it" alright. Obviously you "don't get" my response. I will be generous and put it down to my writing skills.

If you go back and read my post upthread you will take note of the fact that I am defending the President and his reaction to the accusations against Ambassador Rice. Explaining why his comments were absolutely appropriate and not at all motivated by what you and others suggest. Taking the hit for this is way above her pay grade.

He did not do as you suggest. He did what any good BOSS does when an employee is unfairly attacked for something the BOSS is accountable for. He told those that would see her career ruined to come after him. It was what any strong BOSS would do. WEAK bosses hang their staff out to dry.

If I had an employee that was being subjected to a public lynching for something that was in no way their fault I would do the same thing. In fact I did and trust me they weren't "little women" I was defending.

It would have been better for some if he threw her under the bus, then you really would have a legitimate argument. Is it your assertion that the President should have allowed those two Senators to attack her credibility for no good reason? Said nothing?

Oh I "got it" alright....

As far as your an Demi's contention no one but the conservatives here want answers about Benghazi could you show me one single post where someone said any such thing? The only thing I have seen is that people want to wait until all the facts are on the table. No rush to judgment as Condi Rice said.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

So excuse us if we have questions while awaiting for the Obama Administration get their act together to release their "official findings."

No matter how many times we repeat it, you still don't get it, do you!

The four official investigations are not run by the Obama Administration. One is run by an Obama-hater from the House. Surely you dont' think Issa is a lackey for Obama--but just posing as an Obama-hater? Another one is run by moderate Repubicans (I've forgotten the name, but Snowe is one of them) from the Senate. Surely you dont' question the integrity of Republican Senators? A third one is being run by the FBI and the last one by the CIA. Do you honestly belive they are fronts for covering up misdeeds by Obama and his officials?

Those are all "official" investigations authorized by the House , the Senate, etc. They are not Obama officials who cover up presidential misdeeds, as you seem to believe.

But you knew all that--since you have been told that before several times. Unless of course you were telling the truth when you announced recently that you don't bother to read responses to your post. That would explain why you are ignorant of some crucial facts.

Or are you just pretending ignorance so you have an excuse to prod, prod, prod the political opposition?

So you still have questions. How does repeating them, ad nauseum, get you any answers?

Kate


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Chase, you are not playing the partisan game. All your protestations are useless. Insanity and dysfunction rule our political discourses.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

We Canadians are a determined lot!!!


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Like I've said Kate, I've never asked you for answers...jeesh, are you just pretending ignorance?

chase, Obama loves to throw people under the bus...remember his spiritual mentor? His neighbor who helped launch his political career? How about Hillary who is taking the blame for everything. Noticed any self righteous indignation from Obama taking up for her? He'll be happy to let the buck stop at her desk.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Kate, I will ask you this question. Do you believe that Obama does not know why he blamed this attack on a video?


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Nov 19, 12 at 10:53

So from your last post MrsK, it becomes obvious (to me anyway) that it is not about Bengazi at all, it was and will continue to be about Obama.

The "truth" is the CIA was up to their necks in something we will never be told about, but probably involving arms.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

So excuse us if we have questions while awaiting for the Obama Administration get their act together to release their "official findings."
-----------------------------------------------------------
and from the last Bengazi that topped out..........

Regarding Cantor and Issa--just more questions and we deserve answers.

But I'm way more interested in why Obama lied,

Demi when you make statements like these it is obvious why this is such an issue for you and Fox and friends. It has absolutely nothing to do with the deaths. It is OBAMA.

The President is not going to release any official findings. It is the four Congressional committees handling the investigation and the findings will be from those body of government. You do not even know who is investigating this tragedy. You just want to hear Obama is bad. You should prepare yourself this is going to disappoint you just as Romney losing the election.

The findings will not give you the joy you are searching for that the President lied. It will tell you what the Intelligence Community did and did not do.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Sorry Kate I should have refreshed. It appears we are both saying the same thing. It is about Obama, THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE DEATH and they do not have a clue about the scope of the investigations.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

No, I disagree. They care about the deaths. They do have a clue about the investigations. But the real goal is getting Obama and proving that their four years to dire warning about the evils of Obama have finally come true.

That is true fanaticism.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I can honestly say that I know all I need to know about the motivations of some and it has little to do with the truth.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

mrsk, in response to your question directly to me, the answer is (and has been through all these multiple dragged out threads), I DON'T KNOW.

However, I never assume that if the official powers in Washington, D.C. did not personally inform me of what was going on, that probably means they were up to no good.

Nor does it mean that anything I do not know the answer to is probably Obama's fault.

What do I suspect the answer is? Same as ohiomom:
So from your last post MrsK, it becomes obvious (to me anyway) that it is not about Bengazi at all, it was and will continue to be about Obama.
The "truth" is the CIA was up to their necks in something we will never be told about, but probably involving arms.

However, I have no evidence, so I do not know for sure, and I'm not about to go out on a limb and assert something is probably true when it may be nothing more than a figment of my own imagination.

I simply do not know what really happened and why.

Wait. Wait. Wait for possible answers.

Patiently would probably be better for your blood pressure.

Kate


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

But the real goal is getting Obama and proving that their four years to dire warning about the evils of Obama have finally come true.

That is true fanaticism.

I agree that is 100% what it is. The fact that Obama was reelected is so unbelievable to them, they've become even more radical in finding something to discredit him with.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

It has become Fanatic Fanaticism,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

It is sad but how do you get through the fear? After 4 years and countless gotcha that have not worked out when does it stop?

The country have enough terrorist that hate America and are looking for a crack to crawl in and do damage to the country. We are in financial trouble there is a need to move on and up and get out of the gutter politics of gotcha. The majority has spoken move on and work toward a better America.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Well, I just got back and began reading the piling on posts and just skipped over.

It's too much trouble to attempt discourse with some when they do not read what you said and even attempt to comprehend, misrepresent what you say, and make nasty personal comments.

I resent posts like this:

Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Mon, Nov 19, 12 at 10:41

So excuse us if we have questions while awaiting for the Obama Administration get their act together to release their "official findings."

No matter how many times we repeat it, you still don't get it, do you!

*

...that are condescending. While Kate is so bent on portraying me as ignorant that she quite obviously doesn't even get herself what I said and seems so proud of a "gotcha" that isn't a "gotcha" at all !

Try and understand Kate--the fact that others are investigating this matter does not PRECLUDE PRESIDENT OBAMA from talking directly to the citizens of this country and the WORLD and telling us exactly what happened.

Now. Yesterday. Last month.

He knows.

He's silent.

There is a reason--as I noted, I suspect deceit or incompetence.

That's my right to my opinion

The fact that you attempt to dress me down and don't even GET that investigative committees aren't even necessary if Obama would do the right thing and just tell us exactly what happened.

Jillinnj has posted something else bizarre about me, personally--accusing me of saying I do not want anyone to address me when I post.

I never said anything of the sort and reasonable thinking people know that, and know that about me.

What I do not understand is the perpetual need to "state" what some poster believes and what their motives are, accuse them of lying, and making nasty personal comments about their intellect and character.

Of course, if you can't talk about topics and are happier trashing people that you don't even know and who don't even know who you are because you have some strange obsession with them (maybe being spoonfed more lies?) then I suppose that's what you do.

It's futile to try to post like we used to around here because of some newer posters who indulge in this practice on a daily basis, not just now and then.

It used to be fun.

It's not fun to read the trashing of other posters, and it's not fun to spend my time point that out, and not fun for people that want to discuss topics to have to hear, "You got your talking points from Faux N" and "I can honestly say that I know all I need to know about the motivations of some and it has little to do with the truth"
and "You have yours to $$$$ with everyone else" and other personal accusations that are nothing but that--personal accusations.

As I've always said, I don't understand why some can't ask for clarification, or disagree, or just be quiet.

But this is a waste of time for the most part.
I will not be goaded into writing a treatise when someone "demands" that I give my opinion about another topic to justify my opinion on whatever thread I'm posting on.

Now THAT is ridiculous for anyone to assume they have that much influence over anyone--particularly a person that has never been nice to me, has from the get go been argumentative and insulting, and has absolutely no respect from me.

I'm supposed to jump when they say how high?

ROTF!

Yea, when it freezes in Hades.

Have fun.

Maybe we'll find out one day why those people weren't protected and why they died and why Obama's representatives couldn't get their stories straight.

But I wouldn't take bets on it.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

As posted by Demi.......Try and understand Kate--the fact that others are investigating this matter does not PRECLUDE PRESIDENT OBAMA from talking directly to the citizens of this country and the WORLD and telling us exactly what happened.

Apparently she still doesn't get it. What part of waiting until all the investigations have been completed don't you understand? Why would anyone, including the President comment until then?

~Ann


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Posted by ann_t 8a (My Page) on
Mon, Nov 19, 12 at 13:52

As posted by Demi.......Try and understand Kate--the fact that others are investigating this matter does not PRECLUDE PRESIDENT OBAMA from talking directly to the citizens of this country and the WORLD and telling us exactly what happened.

Apparently she still doesn't get it. What part of waiting until all the investigations have been completed don't you understand? Why would anyone, including the President comment until then?

~Ann

*

Apparently YOU don't get it, Ann--President Obama DID COMMENT--He blamed the murders on a video and sent others out to do the same!


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

President Obama DID COMMENT--He blamed the murders on a video and sent others out to do the same!

And that has been explained over and over and over again. But, you don't want to listen because it doesn't fit the 'get Obama' agenda.

Interesting how you didn't read the posts, "just skipped over", yet addressed them. Yup, we believe you.

Jillinnj has posted something else bizarre about me, personally--accusing me of saying I do not want anyone to address me when I post.

Stop whining about people responding to your posts if you're ok with then responding to your posts. Very simple.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Remember good ol' Glenn Beck, asking absurd questions and then waiting for President Obama to call him up on the phone?


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Heh, heh, David. Good one. Same principle!

Demi--you are too modest. Please do take credit for your own condescending comments rather than attributing them to me (by misleading implication).

Demi said:
I resent posts like this:

Then she supposedly "quoted" me as saying:

Posted by dublinbay z6 KS (My Page) on
Mon, Nov 19, 12 at 10:41

So excuse us if we have questions while awaiting for the Obama Administration get their act together to release their "official findings."

No matter how many times we repeat it, you still don't get it, do you!

But I did not make the statement about the "Obama Administration getting their act together"--that is a quote from your post, demi. And yes that is important. I don't want anyone thinking I'm joining you in criticizing President Obama for not "getting his act together." That is your observation. I disagree.

Very misleading way to "quote" someone else. Quote-within-quotes should be acknowledged.

Back to the bigger subject. Wait. There may be a very good reason why President Obama is not coming out and telling tales on the CIA right now. When the investigations are completed, then you may legitimately ask questions if those issues have not yet been addressed.

Wait. Patiently.

By the way, you will never win friends and influence others by repeatedly remarking you just can't be bothered to even read their postings.

Kate


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

There may be a very good reason why President Obama is not coming out and telling tales on the CIA right now.

Maybe Demi would agree with MsKjun that this is "worse than Watergate" in that the CIA has managed to avoid and undo those reforms imposed on that agency after its many misdeeds were exposed. In the 'good old days' the sitting President didn't necessarily even know what the CIA was doing in the name of U.S. national security. Assassinations, coups, drug running, selling arms to Libya -- you name it and the CIA has done it.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I went to the gym an hour earlier than usual . I'm usually there when Shepard Smith is on, and I watch it alternating with CNN. He's the only person on Fox I can stand. I saw the show before his with another interchangeable blonde sitting around in a group discussing....drumroll...Benzhazi!!!!Replay everything MrsK and Demi said and it came out of this panels mouths today. They were speculating that Obama will nominate Rice just to be controversial. They didn't call her 'the little woman' but inferred that he stepped up unnecessarily, and it was patronizing. So now you know the rest of the news......


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Thank you lily. I'm glad to know that I wasn't the only one that came away with that impression. And as I understand it, Rice is a Rhodes scholar and a brilliant woman. Shame on the administration for sending her out there to repeat those lies.

I say worse than Watergate nancy, because in Watergate, no one died.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Worse than Watergate? I'll eat a Ghost Chili Pepper if that turns out to be the case. If NOT, I expect you, mrskjun, to apologize specifically and in detail for claiming the event is worse than Watergate.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

My understanding is that Dr. Rice told the media what the CIA said had happened and she qualified it a lot with phrases like "according to the information currently available."

Unclear how standing up for the integrity of one of his people is "condescending," especially since he was REFUTING the "little woman" accusation. Those of you who thought he was calling her a "little woman"--guess you couldn't see the quote marks around those words when the President was talking into the mike, huh? It was some of her critics who referred to her as the "little woman," not the President.

(As a side note, I remember in a totally different context how certain posters failed to "see" the quote marks around a comment Madonna delivered in her concert. Got some tone-deaf posters? Actually wasn't that one of the criticisms of Romney--tone-deaf about some of his own remarks!)

I also remember Dr. Rice including a number of qualifying phrases like "according to the current information available." What is so blameable about that? As far as we know, it was not exactly clear to many what exactly was going on, thanks to the CIA.

Just curious. Did you get this outraged when General Powell was sent to the UN by Bush, Cheney, and Co. to assure them that there most certainly were WMD in Iraq and that was why we had to invade their country? Did you spend weeks and months doggedly questioning why Bush did that to General Powell? How many deaths did that lead to in the needless Iraq War?

One thing I'm sure of is that the Republican leadership is way out of line for continuing to insist that Dr. Rice is somehow blameable for the message she was given to deliver. McCain is eager to sabotage her entire career, insisting he will personally stop any nomination of her for higher office (secretary of state, for instance) because she is "unfit" for that office. He has other Republican leadership joining him in damning her also--they are making it their "cause" of the day!

If nothing else, politically, it won't help the Republican Party's image--unfairly attacking an African-American woman who, in everybody else's eyes, is considered a highly qualified person. Not a good way to court the African-American vote, Republicans!

Kate


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Well, let's see, over Benghazi, Hillary Clinton and Dr. Rice have been tossed under the bus. Tell me, why do you think the administration sent her out there with the video talking points when they knew all along that it was a lie?
And stop with the race baiting. I actually had no idea that Susan Rice was black until I saw another black woman playing that race card as well. It's getting old and worn, and losing credibility for liberals every time they use it.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

In all the right-wing noise machine politically-inspired hand-wringing over the tragedy in Benghazi, I think it's notable that the CIA receives a pass, and little mention is made of its 13-acre compound in Benghazi. No curiosity why the CIA was there, or the length of its presence there.

No questions why the Agency didn't provide better protection for the compound. No questions why mingling of covert operations with overt consular actions might be a bad idea.

Someone hasn't learned the lessons of recent U.S. history.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

nancy, I think there are a lot of questions there. Were they holding and illegally interrogating Libyan prisoners there as Broadwell said? As bad as everyone wants Benghazi to go away, it shouldn't. It is not just about the video.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

No questions why the Agency didn't provide better protection for the compound

*

Oh yes there have been--I have asked from the start because aside from the lies and different stories and stonewalling from the Obama Administration, the REAL FAILURE was that these public servants of ours were left to be murdered in the first place.

WHY was there not adequate security and a contingency, considering the circumstances---on the anniversary of the 9-11 terrorist attacks, for God's sake?

THAT is what I want to know.

The "rest of the story about the stories" could perhaps be as much a scandal, but the part about why people are dead is much more important.

And we don't even have a cohesive story from the players at this time--particularly about why Obama said it was a video, Susan Rice said it was a video, Hilary said something to a bereaved father when they met his son's casket about arresting the person that made the video--when there was ample evidence that it was in fact a terrorist attack.

Seems to me there's a lot of trashing those that ask those questions--sounds like good little soldiers taking their talking points from the Obama Administration.

Of course, Saul Alkinsky has a little something to do with it.

Attack the messenger and ignore the message or questions.

That practice does not score points or refute anything, but it does prevent discussion of failures of the Obama Administration, which of course is the goal.

The good thing is Saul Alkinsky tactics don't show up in other conversations in the country, and hopefully not in investigations that matter.

No matter how hard The White House tries.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

The question Nancy is posing is with regards to the CIA not the WH or State Department. They are cot one and the same thing..not by a long shot!

The compound was being used as a base for CIA Operatives not for any significant diplomatic purposes....why didn't the CIA provide security. My theory, which is based totally on speculation, is that the nature of the covert CIA operation at Benghazi is at the heart of this story. Hence all the secrecy and classified information. It also explains the silence from the critics once they are "briefed".

I would go so far as to say the State Department had little or no involvement in what was happening there.

However, as I say, pure speculation in the absence of facts.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

mrsk, stop being so overly-sensitive. I did not accuse of doing anything racist. I clearly stated that Senator McCain is the one leading the charge against Dr. Rice and that as of the most recent news cycle, a number of Republican leaders and other prominent Party people have joined with him in unfairly attacking Dr. Rice and announcing to the public that they intend to destroy her career.

Do I find some elements of racism AND sexism in their eagerness to make her a victim of their entrenched partisanship? Yes. Do I think that is all that is going on in their outrageous attacks on her? No. Partisanship prevails--they would attack her for any reason they could--if they thought it would undermine President Obama's credibility in any way.

By the way, I also suspect McCain's attack on this Obama appointee also contains some loser's bitterness.

As to your other questions, mrsk, I give the same answer I gave before. I don't know. But like Nancy, I will be very interested in finding out what the roll and entanglements of the CIA were in this whole affair. But I will not accuse until there is some hard evidence (unlike some other posters)--I'll just be very interested in hearing what the evidence says about the CIA.

Most of America does not believe that Dr. Rice and Hillary Clinton were thrown under the bus--but you are entitled to your own interpretation, mrsk--as long as you recognize that it does not consitute a universal truth.

Kate


 o
Benghazi and The White House

Posted by chase z6 (My Page) on
Tue, Nov 20, 12 at 9:42

The question Nancy is posing is with regards to the CIA not the WH or State Department. They are cot one and the same thing..not by a long shot!

*

Really, Chase?

They are different entitites.

They do have different names.

The CIA answers to the Director of National Intelligence, which answers directly to the President of The United States.

If want to argue the President is too far removed to know what is going on because the CIA does not answer DIRECTLY to him, then he's in the dark about everything that happens in his administration. Extrapolating that "argument," Obama cannot take credit for accomplishments of the agencies in his administration because there is hierarchy between Obama and the agencies.

Can't have it both ways, people.

*

BTW, mrskjunk got that? You have been told by Kate that "you are entitled to your own interpretation...as long as you recognize that it does not constitute a universal truth."

Got that, mrskjun? Kate Has Spoken to you and set you straight about how you are allowed to think!


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

MEOW


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

I haven't been following the Benghazi outrage for a while... so I'm not sure if anyone has mention how many Embassies were attacked while other US Administrations were in office, what the death tolls were, and how much outrage and spin was placed on them... could someone please gather a few numbers and get back to us?


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

what is going on because the CIA does not answer DIRECTLY to him

The fact that the CIA presence was hidden from some in the State Department means that there was a covert operation in Benghazi. Good luck with having the CIA and the National Director of Intelligence approving the release of classified information regarding a possibly ongoing operation. If those demanding immediate release of Benghazi information have previously condemned Bradley Manning for his alledged release of classified information, there's a double standard based on partisan politics.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Posted by jodik 5 (My Page) on
Tue, Nov 20, 12 at 10:05

I haven't been following the Benghazi outrage for a while... so I'm not sure if anyone has mention how many Embassies were attacked while other US Administrations were in office, what the death tolls were, and how much outrage and spin was placed on them... could someone please gather a few numbers and get back to us?

*

Taking the time to look that information up assumes that someone cares at least as much as you do about that information.

I'm sure there are more threads that can be started about other tragedies, which have absolutely know bearing on this one.

For now, I want to know what happened in Benghazi and why.

What has happened in the past or the future has nothing to do with what happened in BENGHAZI.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

MEOW

ARF, ARF!

Or the dog that didn't bark?

If the fault all lies with the Department of State, General Petraeus will be beyond criticism for the failings of the CIA.

Getting ready for the 2016 primaries!


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

could someone please gather a few numbers and get back to us?

David did a mini chart for them to start. Strange there was no comment on that chart. But the issue is not about truth or justice. It is about Obama. At least that is what has been said. They are "way more interested in Obama." They are not WAY MORE INTERESTED IN anything other than Obama.

It is very interesting. They continue to dance on the grave of the death of those 4 people for the latest Faux Rage.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

What has happened in the past or the future has nothing to do with what happened in BENGHAZI.

Events take place on a continuum making it impossible to isolate one incident from that which preceded and that which followed. The underlying decisions - in this case to have the U.S. involve itself in regime chance elsewhere in the world - can be examined. In this case intervention has had bipartisan support for decades and decades, and is seen as advancing U.S. national interests. A better debate would be what should our national interests be with regards to foreign policy.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Posted by marquest z5 PA (My Page) on
Tue, Nov 20, 12 at 10:28

could someone please gather a few numbers and get back to us?

David did a mini chart for them to start. Strange there was no comment on that chart. But the issue is not about truth or justice. It is about Obama. At least that is what has been said. They are "way more interested in Obama." They are not WAY MORE INTERESTED IN anything other than Obama.

It is very interesting. They continue to dance on the grave of the death of those 4 people for the latest Faux Rage.

*

Who, exactly is "they," marquest?


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Yes, Jodi, David has posted it a few times. I reposted below.

What has happened in the past or the future has nothing to do with what happened in BENGHAZI.

That's true. But, the point is where was your outrage during all these other incidents? Where was your outrage after 9/11/01? The point is it's not about the 4 dead. It's not about finding out what happened. It's not about preventing it in the future. It is about "getting Obama". Plain and simple. Yell and scream all you want. It's very clear what your motivation is.

Photobucket


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Posted by jillinnj (My Page) on
Tue, Nov 20, 12 at 10:38

Yes, Jodi, David has posted it a few times. I reposted below.

What has happened in the past or the future has nothing to do with what happened in BENGHAZI.

That's true. But, the point is where was your outrage during all these other incidents?

*

Please try to see life outside your obsession with me, jillinnj.

The POINT is what happened in Benghazi.

The POINT is not what I think or what I thought about what happened years ago, or the year before, or the month before, or what "outrage" I have about other subjects.

That is, unless, you're more interested in me than the topics discussed here.

Which, taking into consideration your posts to me and about me, seems to be the case.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Keep it up and I'll really be outraged about the hypocrisy of demanding accountability for the Benghazi attack as a coverup while never reacting to other attacks on embassies during the prior Bush terms.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

The POINT is what happened in Benghazi.

That is the point Demi. Here is an example of how this issue is presented......

You watch the news and the story is man shot. You do not care.
The next night the news report Woman shot . You do not care
The next night the news report man shot. You are outraged. You post 100s of post of the man shot on yesterday. You want answers now why that man was shot. Why did you not care about a man shot the first day?

What is so different about Benghazi? Could it be Obama? My opinion is it is about Obama since you said you are WAY MORE INTERESTED IN OBAMA.

Do you understand now why you and Fox and Friends care NOW?

You and your ilk should get over it Obama won the election. He is the President of the United States. All the rage will not change that and you only look silly trying to make a issue where there is none to the extent that you wish.

It has been tried for 4 years and it only makes people like him more when they see the prosecution that is tried over and over.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

The POINT is what happened in Benghazi.

The POINT is not what I think or what I thought about what happened years ago, or the year before, or the month before, or what "outrage" I have about other subjects.

The POINT (I have no idea why that is capitalized but you seem to like it, so I'll go with it) is that you only care about getting Obama. If you cared so much about our embassies and what happens to its occupants, you'd have been outraged at all these other incidents. Therefore, you have no credibility. And that is the POINT.

Lastly, stop flattering yourself. There is no obsession with you (well, you have an obsession with you, but nobody else here does). I respond to what you post. If/when I have something to say about what a poster says, I reply. By your logic, we're all obsessed with each other.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

No, you're obsessed with me, jillinj.

You talk about me, you talk for me, as does marquest.

You purport to know what I care about, what I don't care about, Marquest assumes that I'm upset about the election results and states so....so many, many people talking about "Demi" (yes, have fun with that quote too) and arguing with me about my own views.

It's sick.

Sick.

Sick.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Demi,
It is impossible to have an adult discussion with you. It is like mommy he said.......He is picking on me. To respond to your comment is not about you it is about comments you have posted. Goodness you are insecure.

You are the only one that when someone responds to what they post start whining about someone being obsessed with them.

I cannot speak for others but I am more puzzled why you THINK everyone on HT is obsessed with you.

Can you answer why you did not care about the other Embassy deaths?


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

A Benghazi-related event for which you will hear no cries of outrage from the usual partisan mud slingers: Issa's Benghazi document dump exposes several Libyans working with the U.S.

House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) compromised the identities of several Libyans working with the U.S. government and placed their lives in danger when he released reams of State Department communications Friday, according to Obama administration officials.

Issa posted 166 pages of sensitive but unclassified State Department communications related to Libya on the committee's website afternoon as part of his effort to investigate security failures and expose contradictions in the administration's statements regarding the Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi... Issa didn't bother to redact the names of Libyan civilians and local leaders mentioned in the cables, and just as with the WikiLeaks dump of State Department cables last year, the administration says that Issa has done damage to U.S. efforts to work with those Libyans and exposed them to physical danger from the very groups that had an interest in attacking the U.S. consulate.

One of the cables released by Issa names a woman human rights activist who was leading a campaign against violence and was detained in Benghazi. She expressed fear for her safety to U.S. officials and criticized the Libyan government.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Posted by marquest z5 PA (My Page) on
Tue, Nov 20, 12 at 12:08

To respond to your comment is not about you it is about comments you have posted.

*

But here is the problem"

The comments are not about WHAT I post, they are about me, and lies about WHY I post what I post, and speculation about me, personally, and mischaracterizations of my stances, and insults about ME.

You should know.
You do it.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

Makes you wonder--Is Issa more interested in "getting Obama" than he is in protecting the interests of the United States of America and its allies?

Kate


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

"Is Issa more interested in "getting Obama" than he is in protecting the interests of the United States of America and its allies?"

What difference does it make? Hopefully the "truth" will come out.


 o
RE: Bengazi - part 2

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Tue, Nov 20, 12 at 13:29

Thank you Nancy ... so people who risked their lives working with the US are thrown under the bus by Issa, I imagine their lives are not worth 2 nickels now. Nice job Issa :(

This will not generate any outrage ...


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: This thread has reached the upper limit for the number follow-ups allowed (150). If you would like to continue this discussion, please begin a new thread using the form on the main forum page.


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here